用人单位发录用通知后，无故取消录用导致劳动者从原单位离职后失业的，应当承担赔偿责任！最高法发布典型案例

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China has released typical civil cases that promote the core socialist values, covering aspects such as family ethics, workplace civility, romantic relationships, and public conduct [1] Group 1: Family Ethics - In the case of Liang vs. Jiang, a parent who renounces inheritance to avoid paying child support can have that renunciation declared invalid, emphasizing the legal obligation of parents to support their children [2][8][9] - The court ruled that the act of renouncing inheritance to evade child support is malicious and harms the interests of the child, reinforcing the principle that parental responsibilities do not cease upon divorce [10] Group 2: Workplace Civility - In the case of Zhang vs. a technology company, the court found that a company that cancels a job offer after the candidate has resigned from their previous job must compensate the candidate for their losses [3][11][12] - The ruling highlights the importance of good faith in employment contracts and the need for companies to honor their commitments to prospective employees [13] Group 3: Workplace Conduct - In the case of Wu vs. a food company, the court upheld the right of an employer to terminate an employee for sexual harassment, affirming that such behavior violates workplace regulations [4][14][15] - The decision underscores the importance of maintaining a respectful and safe work environment, aligning with socialist core values [16] Group 4: Romantic Relationships - In the case of Xiao vs. Zhou, the court ruled that a person who conceals their marital status to receive significant funds from a partner must return the money, as this constitutes deceit [5][17][18] - This case reinforces the principle of honesty in relationships and the legal consequences of misleading behavior [19] Group 5: Public Conduct - In the case of Guo vs. a restaurant and a management company, the court determined that a person who injures themselves while distracted by their phone cannot hold the establishment liable for their injuries [6][20][21] - The ruling clarifies the limits of liability for public space operators and emphasizes personal responsibility in maintaining safety [22]